• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Social

  • Past Blog Posts

Immigration Judge harassed you?

  1. In a published decision the BIA remanded the record to the immigration court for a new hearing before a different Immigration Judge (IJ), finding that conduct by an IJ that can be perceived as bullying or hostile is never appropriate, particularly in cases involving minor respondents, and may result in remand to a different IJ. The BIA also held that the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence with respect to the admission of expert testimony are inapposite to a respondent’s testimony regarding events of which he or she has personal knowledge.

Immigration Judges hard at work

A recent Transactional Records Access Clearing House (TRAC) report found that Immigration Judges completed 198,105 cases during FY2015, up 7.3% from 184,597 in FY2014. The data indicated that this marks the first time in six years that immigration court case closings have risen rather than fallen, halting a downward slide that had been observed since FY2009.

Get Representation in Asylum Hearings as Court just ruled against Applicant

The Ninth Circuit held that the REAL ID Act permits the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and Immigration Judges (IJs) to base their adverse credibility determinations exclusively on background evidence in the record, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors. As such, the court upheld the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s asylum claims, finding that the BIA and the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, which was based solely on a report from Amnesty International, was supported by substantial evidence.

Be careful with your statements in different proceedings

In a precedent decision issued, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that, in making an adverse credibility determination, an Immigration Judge (IJ) can consider significant similarities between statements submitted by different applicants in different proceedings, as long as the IJ gives the applicant meaningful notice of the similarities and a reasonable opportunity to explain them prior to making a credibility determination that is based on the totality of the circumstances.

IJ MUST give asylum applicants notice of Biometric appointment

In a precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found that Immigration Judges (IJs) must notify asylum applicants of the biometrics requirements, the deadline for complying with the requirements, and the consequences of noncompliance. The BIA also held that neither IJs nor the BIA has jurisdiction to consider whether asylum-only proceedings were improvidently instituted pursuant to a referral under the Visa Waiver Program.

BIA Issues good case

Matter of D-M-C-P, 26 I&N Dec. 644 (BIA 2015)

(1) Neither an Immigration Judge nor the Board of Immigration Appeals has jurisdiction to consider whether asylum-only proceedings were improvidently instituted pursuant to a referral under the Visa Waiver Program.

(2) It is improper to deem an application for relief abandoned based on the applicant’s failure to comply with the biometrics filing requirement where the record does not reflect that the applicant received notification advisories concerning that requirement, was given a deadline for submitting the biometrics, and was advised of the consequences of his or her failure to comply.

BIA Holds IJs Can Grant Opposed Motion for Administrative Closure

DHS press release outlining Obama administration reforms that would help attract new businesses investment to the U.S. and ensure that the U.S. has the most skilled workforce in the world, including the commitment to attracting and retaining highly-skilled immigrants.

%d bloggers like this: